were american cars ever reliable? (sell, driver, gasoline, Dodge)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um, no. Your aircraft have to be certified for actual use, and inspected EVERY TIME you go out to fly them. How many full preflight inspections have you given your car? the inspection process is thorough and can be expensive, on top of the craf themselves being expensive. As such, you dont' just throw away an aircraft, as it cost you more to buy, and is also much more extensively maintained every time it's used.
Know what CARS get that treatment? Expensive classics. And guess what? As many of them are still able to be used as are classic airplanes. Especially classic race cars that often still get used as hard as they did when new in the '50s (or older).
You cannot compare general aviation craft with general automotive vehicles, as their use structure is entirely different. You may fly your plane "regularly" but does it see daily commute duties with nothing more than a glance at the fuel guage and the occasional oil change? No, it does NOT. It may get used regularly, but it takes a LOT more effort to ensure that it CAN be used regularly. Were every car treated the way you are REQUIRED to treat your plane, they'd also be surviving at the rate your classic planes are. Has nothing to do with the quality and reliability of the cars at all. In fact, I'd venture to say that the cars are MORE robust and reliable, as so many of them last without any of the care that you give your aircraft.
I think since like the 90s they would break down a lot compared to Japanese cars. Or did it begin earlier? I suppose the unions have something to do with this but I wonder if they were good cars during the early years and if they were, what happened?
Fixed your post. I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it when people cannot capitalize the beginning of a sentence. sorry...
Every vehicle manufacturer has a timeline for how long their components will last. Some last a little longer than others. Hence, some vehicles last slightly longer than others.
I definitely think unions had a huge hand in destroying the north American car business. You can only pay some uneducated person $60,000 for so long before things start to get ugly. I believe that 30% of the cost of a car goes to pensions/unions?
To me, the domestic trucks aren't bad. I still don't like the import full size trucks. As for the cars, I only buy Japanese vehicles. Domestic cars haven't appealed to me for 20 years.
Um, no. Your aircraft have to be certified for actual use, and inspected EVERY TIME you go out to fly them. How many full preflight inspections have you given your car? the inspection process is thorough and can be expensive, on top of the craf themselves being expensive. As such, you dont' just throw away an aircraft, as it cost you more to buy, and is also much more extensively maintained every time it's used.
Know what CARS get that treatment? Expensive classics. And guess what? As many of them are still able to be used as are classic airplanes. Especially classic race cars that often still get used as hard as they did when new in the '50s (or older).
You cannot compare general aviation craft with general automotive vehicles, as their use structure is entirely different. You may fly your plane "regularly" but does it see daily commute duties with nothing more than a glance at the fuel guage and the occasional oil change? No, it does NOT. It may get used regularly, but it takes a LOT more effort to ensure that it CAN be used regularly. Were every car treated the way you are REQUIRED to treat your plane, they'd also be surviving at the rate your classic planes are. Has nothing to do with the quality and reliability of the cars at all. In fact, I'd venture to say that the cars are MORE robust and reliable, as so many of them last without any of the care that you give your aircraft.
Thanks for the lecture on how I may or may not use my aircraft.
It's quite obvious that you're not an aircraft owner, haven't been around GA single engine aircraft, and don't have a clue about actually owning and operating an aircraft in GA except for the rumors floating around in your dreams.
The annual inspection process is not a repair process, it's an INSPECTION by an IA ticket holding mechanic performed ONCE a YEAR. Under that supervision, I am legally allowed to open up the aircraft as needed, perform routine maintenance chores (replace brake pads, change oil/filter, and other very minor maintenance ... tire/inner tube replacements, etc). As the aircraft owner, I can even manufacture repair parts for the plane, if needed, as long as I use them exclusively for my own aircraft repair ... happy to report that this has never been needed for my plane.
The fact is that I've put fewer repairs in to my aircraft than I have in many cars through the years. While the plane does get an "annual inspection" per Cessna's guidelines, I've opened it up every year for over 20 years for the inspection process and put it back together without needing repairs and very rarely any adjustments. The inspection has simply revealed that all is OK and lightened my wallet a bit for the process to keep the plane legal. Yes, I've needed a couple of cylinders overhauled through the years ... and after 35 years of service, the motor finally got a field IRAN overhaul last year when the camshaft started to spall. I change the oil and filter on it every 50 hours, which works out to about 7,500 miles of travel.
My plane gets a pre-flight inspection by me ... and only me ... as the PIC and aircraft owner before the first flight of a day. It's not a lengthy process, and I can do it in a matter of minutes; check the oil, visually inspect the exterior surfaces, make sure the static ports are clear, sump the fuel tanks, make sure movable surfaces are free moving, verify no ice or frost on the surfaces, etc. It doesn't cost me a penny to do this except for my time to pre-flight my plane and satisfy myself that it's airworthy. Otherwise, in a day's worth of business or personal travel ... it does not get inspected again except for me to verify the fuel level, sump the tanks, and check gas cap security after getting refueled. The rest is a very brief visual inspection, done in accordance with prudent safety and legal requirements ... and I do my mag checks, controls checks, instrument checks, and other pre-take-off checks while taxiing.
FWIW, my 1964 aircraft cost a lot less than many of the collector (as well as daily driver) cars when I bought it. You have absolutely no idea how inexpensive high performance workhorse aircraft were in the 1970's; mine wasn't even in the 'teens, and I paid a premium price for it because it had full logbooks and no recorded accident damage (which I found out later wasn't true; it had sustained some wing and nose damage years previously which was properly repaired but not logged). I had a lot of MB's and BMW's coming through my shop which cost the owners a lot more to buy than my aircraft at the time ... and needed a lot more routine servicing and repairs for parts that broke or wore out on them. Even a 320i cost more than my bird! And, just for comparison ... years ago, the rear muffler assembly for a 630 or 633CSi cost more than the muffler for my bird.
I know for a FACT that I've put less into repairs into this bird through the years than most cars of it's vintage to keep them serviceable. And the repairs that have been needed are all of the "farmer John" level of competency and skills; if a fellow could maintain farm equipment, my aircraft would not be a challenge to his abilities. Seriously, there's nothing on about my aircraft that's much newer than 1930's motor vehicle technology. Can't say the same about the cars I've worked on through the years.
Having now worked extensively on both single engine aircraft, as well as over 48 years on cars ... I can readily draw upon my actual experience with the failure points, maintenance issues, and repair costs of both. Many cars have been maintenance hogs since they were on the road just a few years.
My plane has the equivalent of 825,000 miles on it, and has only been through two motors, one set of brake rotors (they rusted out to a unacceptably rough surface), 4 sets of brake pads, an air filter every year, a fuel tank bladder replacement, a couple of landing light bulbs, two prop overhauls, and a bunch of tires/tubes. When the nose strut needed repair, the seal kit for it was only $17. I know a former owner paid $3,500 to get it repainted, and I've been able to polish and wax that to a very acceptable condition ... the plane gets second looks and compliments almost everywhere it lands. Showpiece? NO ... it's a workhorse ... and I've got the logs and pix to prove that it's been into some pretty tough backcountry airstrips through the years ... as well as taxi'ed up to the gas pumps at a truck stop near Pueblo CO when they had a little dirt strip out back and a high wing plane could taxi past the fences.
In comparison ... a typical car with comparable number hours of use on it ... if used in 75 mph commuting ... would have logged over 420,000 miles. Just how many of all your cars come even close to that mileage? especially the pampered collectables ...
Just for reference ... I don't take road trips in any of my cars/trucks without thoroughly checking fluid levels, tire pressures, hoses, belts, lights, and other functions. The brakes and suspension are checked every 3,000 miles when I do an oil/filter change. As I live in a remote area where a service call could be prohibitively expensive (and in inclement weather, perhaps not available for days), and travel across remote areas of the country (where it's not uncommon for 100 miles between any towns) ... I am very pro-active about inspecting and verifying that my vehicle is ready for the trip. And that goes double for keeping my wife's vehicles on the road ... the last thing I need is the frantic phone call for help because of vehicle malfunctions with her 30 to 60 miles away on routine errands. We strive for 100% uptime on our vehicles ... and that means keeping active tabs on more than just the gas gauge.
I certainly do, if they were as good a consumer product fit for their intended purpose as you claim.
Again, I'll point to many consumer products of similar age which are in regular use today. Mechanical movement watches are a great example ... and surviving examples are highly sought after and valuable today. These were built with a quality level of materials and manufacturing standards to assure long service life ... even the lower priced models, as well as the luxury models. I've got a Waltham that my Dad bought new in the 1950's that keeps better time than my 1978 Rolex SS Submariner (which never kept good time from the day it was new ... and has needed to be rebuilt three times to keep it running at all).
I'd bet that the number of surviving cars in daily use driving condition of the era you cite are less than one percent ...
While aircraft of the same vintage are surviving in the 80-90% range, and well documented by the public registration records. I doubt you could make a case that my aircraft is less complex than your car ... it's got an internal combustion motor, disc brakes, control systems, and a lot of instrumentation. Add to that picture ... most of the technology of that 1964 aircraft was of 1930's origins. And I can go back into the records and show you that similar aircraft of the 1950's are still in regular use, probably about 80% of those survive ... in fact, if I were to sell my 1964 model, I'd be replacing it with a late 1950's model which had better performance capability for my needs. Other than the required annual inspections, which are simply that ... inspections ... most of these birds have required little actual repair work. It's well documented that they get more wear from opening and closing them up for the inspections than they get from using them as intended; nobody has ever found the service life limit of my aircraft series.
It was certainly within the capability of the design, materials, and manufacturing of the automotive industry in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's to build automobiles of reasonable price with similar quality, durability, and longevity with nominal maintenance as my aircraft. But the Big 3 (as well as a host of other manufacturers) ... didn't. That's why their cars came off the road so quickly.
You are comparing apples and oranges again.
Let's say I go back to the year 1965 and buy a new car. How many years do you think it should last? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? 50?
Back in the '50s and '60s, it was common for people to trade in their new car every 2-5 years. The formerly new car they owned was now a used car, which meant it was not only out of warranty but, in many instances, not cared for as well as a new car would be.
One thing is for sure... there would be a lot more '50s and '60s cars on the road if they were maintained properly. Some people have the oil changed once a year "whether it needs it or not." In case you don't know, the oil should be changed more often than once a year.
Let's say I go back to the year 1965 and buy a new car. How many years do you think it should last? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? 50?
Back in the '50s and '60s, it was common for people to trade in their new car every 2-5 years. The formerly new car they owned was now a used car, which meant it was not only out of warranty but, in many instances, not cared for as well as a new car would be.
One thing is for sure... there would be a lot more '50s and '60s cars on the road if they were maintained properly. Some people have the oil changed once a year "whether it needs it or not." In case you don't know, the oil should be changed more often than once a year.
NO, Fleet, it's not "apples and oranges". You apparently cannot see past the hood ornament to understand basic mechanical concepts of design, materials, building, and subsequent maintenance. The technology was readily available to the automotive industry at a reasonable cost to produce from around the late 1930's and certainly by the post WW2 years. The only reason aircraft were so expensive relative to cars was that the design and build costs had to be amortized over a few thousand units compared to millions of units .... it wasn't until the CAB became the FAA and started a huge number of regulations (and years following of the lawyers getting into the cash cow of GA) that single engine aircraft costs got a bit out of hand.
Few cars of the era you own made it through many years of owner maintenance ... again, I'll reiterate it for you. Despite careful maintenance and not abusing the vehicles, most of these cars were off the road in droves within a few years after they hit the secondary marketplace.
And yes, as a shop owner with a vested interest in keeping my customers' cars on the road for as long as possible ... I advocated them having the oil changed (and the car inspected, yes, I was looking for those "upsell" opportunities) every 3,000 miles or a maximum of 6 months. Since I specialized in MB and BMW autos ... cars with a significant owner investment, which justified proper routine maintenance ... it was an easy sell for the owners to bring their cars in on schedule. With a postcard reminder that I mailed out if they didn't call in to schedule, many were apologetic about not getting their car in for service and made their appointments.
What I do get out of all this exchange, however, is your playing both sides of the aisle here about longevity issues with cars of the 50's and 60's. On the one hand, you tell us that if these cars had been maintained properly, they'd still be drivers ... OTOH, you pin the deficiencies of these cars on the owners giving them less than proper maintenance. I don't buy it ... I saw the line-ups of cars out the door and around the block at Sears, Monkey Wards, JC Pennys, and a host of other chain stores that heavily marketed their TBO services and ran promo's all the time in that era. As a college kid, I worked at one of those, and watched the lube bay guys be among the busiest people in the building for days on end. Saturdays and Sundays, especially ... folks were lined up in front of the bays and far into the parking lot. People did, in fact, recognize the substantial investment they had in their cars and did their best to protect that investment. Very few cars, in my experience, came through without a door full of service stickers stuck into a thick stack. The bulk oil deliveries to those shops every week was verification of just how big a business it was ....
I started my first retail shop in the 1960's ... and we did correct routine maintenance on those cars, and prudent preventative maintenance, too. The cars simply didn't hold up very well, despite those measures ... and became money pits compared to buying a new car after a few years.
Even you acknowledge that folks typically traded out of a new car in 2-5 years ... well, why do you think they did that? Was it because the ash trays were full? Was it because they knew from practical experience that the cars had reached the functional end of their service life? Was it because they had so much disposable income that they could afford to flaunt it with a new car every so often? Was it because brake life wasn't very long and wheel cylinders and axle seals and wheel bearings failed after a couple of years and well under 100,000 miles? Was it because carburetors would crud up and need overhauls every few years? Was it because spark plugs and wires and distributor caps/rotors and condensors failed at 20-30,000 mile intervals? Was it because radiator hoses failed every few years? Was it because accessory belts failed periodically? Was it because the cars needed valve jobs when they started losing compression or burning oil? Maybe ... just maybe ... it was a combination of all these mechanical issues and consumables that just added up to it being more economical to buy a new car and for better reliability than the old one.
Do you even remember when cars used to pull in to filling stations and it was customary to check the oil level and top it up every couple of fuel stops? I do ... it was a consumable item which didn't last that many miles per quart. Traveling at highway speeds ... yes, I can remember the first 55 mph speed limit road being built in CA ... radically increased oil consumption on those old cars. My Dad always traveled with a case of those old glass bottle bulk oil quarts to replenish the oil as needed on trips with his Packards ... as well as a short termed '58 Buick and a '57 Ford (first car he owned with a V-8 and air conditioning). The first cars the family owned that didn't need a lot of oil top ups between oil changes were the 289's in the 1964 Fords that the folks bought.
Which brings to mind another issue of significance ... those cars of the 50's and 60's weren't seeing a lot of high speed freeway driving at sustained 65 mph speeds. With Caddy's having several hundred, if not 400+ HP ... and only 65 mph roads across the country as the Interstate system was being built ... those motors didn't have to work very hard. And yet they did wear, as did the rest of the car ... to a point where they required a lot of maintenance. From my perspective, as a shop worker and then owner ... the folks that didn't take care of their cars were soon walking when the cars would no longer run. I'd have to admit that I was jealous of a friend in the towing business in Denver ... he got all his money from towing the cars in to the shops, and that was the end of his involvement. We had to diagnose, estimate, and sell the repairs, then perform them ... to get any money from a customer. There was a lot of days where I wished I'd made $50-75 net profit on every car that came through the shop, which is what my friend would make (the hook-up charge alone was $30, mileage on top of that .... ).
Thinking back, I'd expected that my 1964 Ford would have lasted at least 10 years. It didn't before it was a maintenance hog. That car dropped the exhaust valve after 4 years of modest service ... always had the oil changed on schedule, had clean filters, and was never run over 65 mph. It was driven far enough each driving cycle to warm it up to operating temp and keep it there for awhile. I'd already had to go through the brakes, rebuild the cylinders, replace the master cylinder, and had to have the radiator rodd'ed out once to keep the normal water temp maintained (it wasn't allowed to run hot, it was a matter of noticing that it wasn't keeping the water temp where it used to be and diagnosing the problem), a water pump, several t-stats, belts, hoses, 2-bbl carb overhaul, a transmission overhaul, an exhaust system, several sets of spark plugs, wires, dist cap/rotor, points/condensor, headlight switch, turn signal switch and then another turn signal switch cam, generator overhaul, two sets of shocks, tie rod ends and center drag link and an idler arm, front wheel seals and bearings ... and similar significant expenses in it's service life when I traded it for my 1972 BMW 2002 in December of 1971. I got $300 for the car which we'd bought for slightly over $2,000 new. IF it had been such a great car, capable of giving good service with routine proper maintenance, I'd never have been looking to get rid of it when I did. But it was typical of it's era ... and it was very carefully maintained and with preventative maintenance, too. I didn't wait for stuff to go catastrophically fail before it was judged worn enough to be a problem in the making. What I saw was significant was that this car was in no way unusual for it's era .... I know that few mid 1960's cars in the USA were on the road much more than 10 years later, because I saw the fleet that my partner was working on in our shop. And yet you claim that all these cars should have been on the road with proper care for many more years than that ....
Sunspirit, much of what you have posted is irrelevant. I mean, come on, trying to compare cars with furniture?!?
The reason most people traded cars in every 2-5 years was not because they needed repairs, but because of the different, more "modern" styling. Remember, Chrysler had a 5-year/50,000 mile warranty starting in 1963. If a car needed brakes or a carb overhaul, so? No big deal. It's called maintenance and upkeep.
Where do you get the idea that radiator hoses fail every few years? The ones on my '69 have not been changed since I bought it in 2004.
You seem to selling '50s and '60s cars short. I didn't realize checking the oil level every couple of fuel stops is a bad thing!
Regarding the Cadillac engines ("motor" is technically incorrect), they had a high amount of nickel content in them which was one reason for their longevity. I don't know where you get the idea that those engines require a lot of maintenance.
Another poster in this thread provided a link. And in that link it said: "According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average lifespan of a car is 12 years or about 128,000 miles."
The above is referring to new cars, not '50s and '60s cars. Many, many people got well over 12 years from '50s and '60s cars.
You expected your 1964 Ford to have lasted at least 10 years. Well, many 1964 cars did! Just because yours didn't doesn't mean all of them did not.
Let's say I go back to the year 1965 and buy a new car. How many years do you think it should last? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? 50?
Back in the '50s and '60s, it was common for people to trade in their new car every 2-5 years. The formerly new car they owned was now a used car, which meant it was not only out of warranty but, in many instances, not cared for as well as a new car would be.
One thing is for sure... there would be a lot more '50s and '60s cars on the road if they were maintained properly. Some people have the oil changed once a year "whether it needs it or not." In case you don't know, the oil should be changed more often than once a year.
I know people today who refuse to maintain their new cars.. I know a guy who leases his cars and.. are you ready?... Dont get them inspected or maintained in any way. Oil change? Nope. He trading it in a few years anyway.. and like I said. Not even a legal car inspection. He simply does not care. He has $$ too, its not because he is cheap. He figured let the next owner worry about it.. All I can do is shake my head.,
I know people today who refuse to maintain their new cars.. I know a guy who leases his cars and.. are you ready?... Dont get them inspected or maintained in any way. Oil change? Nope. He trading it in a few years anyway.. and like I said. Not even a legal car inspection. He simply does not care. He has $$ too, its not because he is cheap. He figured let the next owner worry about it.. All I can do is shake my head.,
Well he's just being a jacka**, really. That's bad karma, leaving problems for the next guy.
Hopefully his next car breaks down on him.
just jumpin in here,ive got a good one-my 1990 plymouth voyager,paid $200 for it,new tires nd brakes,working ac,bad paint,no rust, its got 480,000 miles on it with a 3.0 liter v6,getting 36mpg, doesnt burn oil yet,despite the fact that the valve guides usually go out quick on them, nvr a problem, starts everytime on the first try cars have gotten alot better, ive also got a 1969 dodge dart custom, needs floor boards,but start nd drives just fine,with 353,000 miles on her, original engine (225slant six) and transmission,doesnt burn oil,i have to say,im very proud of both my P.O.S.'s. u cant beat that kinda reliability, neither of them have ever been rebuilt,just routine maintainence ,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cars have gotten alot better, ive also got a 1969 dodge dart custom, needs floor boards,but start nd drives just fine,with 353,000 miles on her, original engine (225slant six) and transmission,doesnt burn oil,i have to say,im very proud of both my P.O.S.'s. u cant beat that kinda reliability, neither of them have ever been rebuilt,just routine maintainence ,
